Beach Runner wrote:
>> I disagree that it's obvious he loves animals. He resents that other
>> people eat them. Like other AR activists, he doesn't care that some
>> animals live and others die. His primary objection is that humans
>> enjoy eating them, benefit from testing on them, etc. AR activists
>> don't love animals so much as they really hate mankind. Their
>> literature is filled with misanthropy.
>
> I hardly agree with all of Peta's tactics. For example his Holocaust on
> a plate with pictures of Jews in camps. I think Peta offends and chases
> away many potential friends.
Interesting spin, Bob, because I think PETA's efforts such as the one
you mention attract kooks and extremists to a greater extent than they
dispel "potential friends." This distinction is even clearer when you
consider what PETA's leaders say about various tactics including the
threat and use of violence and terrorism.
Bruce Friedrich, PETA's Director of Vegan Outreach:
If we really believe that these animals do have the same right
to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course
we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing
windows. For the record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do
advocate it. I think it’s a great way to bring about animal
liberation … I think it would be a great thing if all of these
fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these
laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I
think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and
toss them through the windows, and everything else along the
line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.
—- “Animal Rights 2001” convention, July 2001
McVeigh's decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the
world's greatest visionaries.
-- Citation not given
Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA
One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of
animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ...
they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to
come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and
watch TV.
— The Chicago Daily Herald, March 1990
I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I
don’t have any reverence for life, only for the entities
themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This
will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn’t be
harming anything.
— The Washington Post, Nov 1983
Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to
a bunch of cinders? Yes.
— New York Daily News, 12/7/97
I will be the last person to condemn ALF [Animal Liberation
Front].
— New York Daily News, 12/7/97
I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the
animals out or burn them down.
— National Animal Rights Convention, 6/27/97
Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against
it.
— Vogue, Sept 1989
Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for
years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.
— US News & World Report, 4/8/02
I openly hope that [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will
bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people
heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like
existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health
and good for the environment.
— ABC News interview, 4/2/01
Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the
face of the earth.
— Washingtonian magazine, 2/1/90
Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow
animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first
time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the
laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more
guts, I’d light a match.
— Chronicle of Higher Education, 11/12/99
Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt ... we are not
here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends.
We're here to hold the radical line.
— USA Today, 9/3/91
There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has
special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all
animals.
— Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86
> Certain research does make sense.
> Other's are cruel and unnecessary.
The problem is that PCRM and PETA don't distinguish between research
which makes "sense" and that which doesn't. They're extremists who think
ALL research is "bad" when performed on animals. See above.
>>> I would hope that wouldn't effect the integrity of his professional
>>> publications.
>>
>> Keep hoping, and the rest of us will rely on our BS detectors. PCRM is
>> an animal rights organization. It is not a professional organization
>> despite its name. Their membership is overwhemingly (95%)
>> non-scientific and entirely pro-AR. PCRM's work is advocacy, not
>> scientific.
>
> Generally, what I read in the PCRM is appealing.
For the same reason you find the hysteria about global warming
appealing: because it confirms your political and (counter-)cultural
beliefs. PCRM's advocacy of veganism and the doomsdayers global warming
solutions have something else in common: when it comes to addressing the
"problems" they're supposed to solve, both are bogus do-nothing
"solutions." Veganism doesn't end animal suffering or death, nor does it
inherently improve human health -- in many instances, veganism increases
animal harm and worsens human health. Likewise, the extreme leftwing
"solutions" to global warming would have no impact on it -- if anything,
it would make the "problems" worse.
> Can you identify
> specifics, other than an agenda you disagree with.
See above, and add:
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,04528.cfm
http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html
http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000033.html
Etc.